This is my first time guest-blogging anywhere, and my first time blogging in WordPress. So far it’s been an adventure, one mostly of my own making. 
I was scouring Google last night, trying to come up with a fabulous, funny topic, and came up with bupkus. Well, as far as funny, anyway. I found lots of shocking porn sites, which seems to happen no matter how innocent my internet searches start out. And I stumbled into Literotica…well, after I signed up as a member. Talk about a fascinating place! My reactions to the stories ran the gamut, from “Frickin’ awesome!” to “Where’s an airsick bag when you need one?”
The whole time I was reading, I felt guilty about wasting time when I should have been working on today’s post, but after sleeping on it, I realize it was actually time well spent. Reading all that straight erotica gave me a much firmer grasp on the difference between erotic romance and erotica, and believe me, it’s a huge difference. If you’re having trouble making the distinction yourself and you’ve never visited the Literotica site, stop in and look around — it’ll open your eyes. (But if you’ve got delicate sensibilities or a touchy stomach, you might want to skip it.)
Anyway, I read quite a few stories where several people were having sex together. I hesitate to call them ménages because some of them came across more as (and a couple were actually labelled as) gang bangs. Which started me wondering what the difference was.
For the last few months, I’ve been kind of annoyed by the fact that EC won’t give Alien Overnight a ménage classification (which means it won’t come up when visitors search for ménage stories) because all the participants aren’t in a permanently committed relationship. WTF does that have to do with anything? I wondered. In my mind, a ménage was simply three or more people having sex together, and in AO, all three main characters participated in every sexual encounter. In fact, they’re in a “committed” relationship from the beginning and they’re in a “committed” relationship at the end, though I made it clear that the commitment probably wasn’t permanent for one of the three.
But then I heard from a friend that she’d had a story rejected by a different epublisher because the ménage element was just an encounter rather than a permanently committed relationship. In light of how reluctant I was to equate the ménage scenes I usually enjoy reading and writing with the gang bangs at Literotica, I started to wonder if maybe I was wrong. Maybe love and commitment really were supposed to be part of a ménage.
So I looked up ménage a trois at Merriam-Webster Online and found, to my surprise, that it literally means household for three. That would certainly seem to back EC’s position on ménage. But the rest of the definition reads: an arrangement in which three persons (as a married pair and the lover of one of the pair) share sexual relations especially while living together.
Okay, so Kellen and Monica are permanently committed, Shauss is Monica’s semi-committed lover, and they all three have sex at the same time, which seems to meet the original definition of ménage. BUT…they’re not living together, strictly speaking. Shauss maintains his own quarters on the ship, while Kellen and Monica share quarters.
Obviously AO could go either way, according to that definition of ménage. OTOH, there is actually a word that truly means being in a marriage with more than one mate at a time, and that word is polygamy. Unfortunately, I think it has some negative associations that publishers probably want to avoid.
Another term that’s popular at the moment is polyamory, which means having more than one open romantic relationship at a time. I really like that one because of the stipulated romantic element, but it’s a pretty broad definition that doesn’t necessarily mean all of the partners are in the same room together while having sex. It could refer to a woman who has two or more lovers in separate relationships (think Anita Blake), which is far from being a ménage.
So is AO a ménage story? Not according to EC’s interpretation of a ménage, and it’s their call. If it were my call, I’d use a broader definition of ménage in order to help more readers connect with the stories they’re looking for – after all, there are a lot of people who consider a one-time ménage scene a more realistic fantasy than a committed three-way relationship.
What do you think? When you search for ménage stories, what are you looking for?
September 9th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Well, if you look at my cover in the sidebar, you can imagine that I have a threesome story. It would fit EC’s definition of menage because they three are in a three-way mating at the end of the story. However, I would consider a ROMANCE story where there’s threesome sex a menage. No commitment required at the end. No romance and it does skate a tad too close to gang bang for my personal taste.
September 9th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
First, thanks for visiting us Robin! It’s great to have you here.
I considered AO a menage. In romance I don’t think all the participants have to end up in a committed relationship but at least two do or it’s not a romance.
As far as classifying them, if there’s menage sex in it, despite the dynamics at the end of the story, I think that’s how it should be classified.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
See, your story is like mine, Crys, in that it’s not contemporary, but FFS. In stories like that, it’s more believable to have the three in a permanent, committed relationship. In contemporary romances, though, societal mores (not to mention polygamy laws) make an openly and formally committed trio less believable to me, especially if kids are now or will eventually be part of the equation. If I tried to keep a husband and a permanent live-in lover around here (no matter how appealing the idea may be :D), I’d have family raising hell, neighbors avoiding me, and social services trying to take away my kids. No matter how hard I try, sometimes the present reality makes suspending my disbelief while I’m reading fiction very difficult. Not always — just sometimes.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
As always, I’ll be interested to see Nonny’s reply
I have to say, when I read ‘menage’ I read: sexual threesome.
When I read ‘polyamory’, I read : threeway relationship.
*sigh* Outing myself (again) as the prude of the group, I’m going to admit I’m not much into reading ‘menages’. I kind of don’t mind when authors keep the bedroom door shut. :-S
However, polyamory stories DO interest me. Because of those societal mores which make that type of relationship so difficult to maintain.
*sigh* So I’m not at all your target reader lol, and therefore my input is really only here to skew your results
September 9th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Oh, and thank you girls for having me! (blushing) Leave it to me to forget the niceties.
I agree, Lori, with both you and Crystal — two of the participants, gay or straight, must live HEA for a menage to be a romance, even if the third comes and goes, so to speak.
In other societies, though, where citizens haven’t been conditioned to the one man/one woman concept, polygamous relationships can and do work. Frankly, the idea of having another woman around to help with the housework is very tempting, LOL! But I can see all too easily where jealousy and competitiveness could become huge problems and I just couldn’t deal with conflict like that in my own home. (Plus, I don’t think Mr. Robin could deal with two hormonal women. :D)
September 9th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I am going with the majority, I was sure your book would be classified under menage-I’m a little surprised. I will admit I favor-however unrealistic, the three staying together always in crowded bathroom bliss LOL
But AO was PERFECTION, just the way it was-leaving room for yet another exciting story from that world {I’m waiting patiently lol}
I love reading menage…I really do…A Lot…it worries Cookie how much LMAO
But I dont have a super strict definition-as long as I have an HEA for two…or three…I’ve read of four…I am happy.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Ooh, now I can’t wait for Nonny to post, Dayna.
And you’re not skewing my results! I hate to confess this, but I, too, am more interested in (as opposed to aroused by) the dynamics of the polyamorous/polygamous relationship.
I joked earlier about sharing the housework, but it wasn’t necessarily a joke. I have the type of personality that I think, in a different time and place, could be part of a polygamous relationship. Not that I’ll ever have the chance to test that theory, but it’s interesting to think about.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Wow, y’all post comments faster than I can reply!
LOL, R.G.! Cookie has nothing to worry about and he knows it. He’s probably thrilled you’ve got such an active imagination.
See, that’s just one more reason I could be part of a threesome — I hardly need any time in the bathroom.
If I were the type to spend an hour in front of the mirror every morning, we’d definitely need another bathroom to go with that extra partner.
And thank you, sweetie! I’m glad you were happy with AO — and I hope I can get EO out sometime in the near future. (fingers crossed)
September 9th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Robin, the dynamics of a threeway relationship fascinate me. Before I was married with kids…I’d never considered it as a ‘viable’ option. And now, with kids…well, I’m one of Those Moms who worries about how they’d adjust. Or if they would. (and whether or not my X would want custody of my oldest, etc.)
However, now that I can wrap my head around it as a ‘real’ relationship, I have to wonder if I’m the type of person who could handle it. I’m not sure I could put my own insecurities aside for it or not. (as my husband would not be into a m/m/f combination, the f/f/m combination is the one I think about.) Could I handle that? I know I couldn’t take my kids calling someone else ‘mom’. Would that immediately change the dynamic?
Granted, we’re not about to take on another wife, so it’s a mental exercise more than anything else
September 9th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
hmmmm, I always assumed that menage was threesome sex, not threesome relationship.
I know I am far too jealous to share the mister with anyone…I catch myself getting jealous of my stepkids. He is mine mine mine.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Well, I’m with you, Robin. I thought a menage was a three way sexual relationship–MMF, FFM,. I thought polyamory was a three way committed relationship.
What do I know.
I don’t LOOK for menage, but when checking out erotic romance, those will catch my eye. I LOVED “In Smoke”.
Very interesting post.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
LOL @ Dayna.
“Menage” to me means a sexual encounter between three people. It doesn’t have an implied commitment.
“Polyamory” (or polygamy, but I dislike that term because of the negative connotations) is a committed relationship between three or more people.
Something I’ve noticed, though, is that publishers will take a term like “menage” or even “paranormal romance” and use it as they please without regard for what it means in other circles. In some cases, it’s ignorance (which can be rectified if they’re willing to hear); in others, it’s simply that they don’t care, they want to do it their way.
It’s annoying, especially for those of us who are anal retentive about people calling something what it is. You don’t call a leopard a jaguar and expect people not to be confused.
*mutter*
September 9th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Dayna said: “Could I handle that? I know I couldn’t take my kids calling someone else ‘mom’. Would that immediately change the dynamic?”
When I was with my exes, their kids didn’t refer to me as their mom. We were open about the relationship, though we found out a long while after breaking up that Jaime (who was 9) never actually realised we were together despite being told. ^_-
I was referred to as “Aunt Nonny” by the kids. Other poly folk I know, the kids will treat the third more like a step-mom or such. Usually, it’s only relationships where the polyamory pre-existed the kids that more than one parent is called Mom/Dad.
September 9th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I’m also one of Those Moms, Dayna, and you’re right — this is nothing more than a mental exercise for me. I guess I’ll never really know how I’d handle it until Mr. Robin walks in the front door with another woman on his arm to “help out” around here. Maybe my deeply buried jealous tendencies would rise to the fore, Gwen.
(blinking shock) You don’t LOOK for menage, Jen? That’s always the FIRST thing I look for, LOL! I think I’ve lived around cattle for too long. You know, there’s usually just one bull out there with all those cows — one male on multiple females is starting to seem kind of natural to me.
September 9th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Hey, I didn’t even know I liked Erotic Romance until a little over a year ago. I didn’t know it existed.
Since then, I’ve discovered I LOVE BDSM, menage and all sorts of stuff. But I like it within the romance context. Which makes me still the Chocolaty Vanilla Diva. LOL.
September 9th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
OMG, Nonny, don’t even get me started. I’m still stunned that an RWA Board so inclined to argue semantics with their own members would blindly accept an attorney’s inaccurate interpretation of the word “primary”.
But if no one can agree on a definition of erotic romance, why should I expect them to agree on what a menage is?
September 9th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Jen, you mean you’re the twisted Diva?
September 9th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Hi, Robin! Great post!
I always thought the term referred to the sexual relationship/encounter, too. I read a “menage” from EC a couple of years ago about a couple who takes out an ad for a third person, strictly for sex. So that must be a new thing.
I have a menage story right now where the three end up together and I’m seriously thinking about changing the ending. That whole bathroom thing just would never work…
September 10th, 2007 at 1:42 am
You know I actually prefer my threesomes to be non-committed. I just have a hard time believing in a HEA with three people.
I love a threeseome where it’s spontaneous and the hero and heroine go about life as normal afterward. So maybe that makes me the weird one.
But I’d be annoyed not to be able to find your book in the menege section if it had an awesome threesome scene (and it does!)
I’d want that book as an option when I go looking.
JMHO.
September 10th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Shelli: Given the way most romances portray relationships involving three or more people… mmhmm, I agree. One of my biggest pet peeve is when there’s supposedly a committed relationship but the “real” romance is obviously between two and the third might as well be a walking penis. *grr*
September 10th, 2007 at 5:21 am
I’ve read a only a few threesomes. “In Smoke” by Crystal Jordan. I think did a good job avoiding the “walking penis” thing that Nonny talked about.
There was another one by an EC author who had a “walking vagina” meaning the committed relationship was between a man and a woman with a another woman thrown in there for fun. That one didn’t impress me much.
But the best one I’ve seen is Dayna’s Cats. I’ve gotten to read them over a few times and I don’t know what final form they’ll take, but Dayna makes it so I can’t see Mickey (the hero) without BOTH the women. It’s awesome.
September 10th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Awww. Jen. That story’s so deep in storage *sigh* I tried hard on that one. Frankly because I talk a lot with nonny and know how bad it’d be of me to screw it up, yknow?
And Nonny, I’m glad you laughed…I thought about it after and wondered if I’d set you up as the Bad Guy of the group.
And honestly, whether they all end up HEA together or not doesn’t ‘matter’ to me, so long as I’m aware up front whether it’s a “threeway relationship” story, or a ‘couple with an extra body’ story. (though again, I tend to skim the sex scenes…I’m curious about how it just ‘goes back to normal’ afterward. Or how you make that threeway relationship work.)
And Nonny, being called “Aunt” didn’t make you feel any less part of that family dynamic. But…for me…*shaking head* I am a total MamaBear. Calling my imaginary-wife “Aunt” would be relegating her to secondary status in our home. And I have to think that would affect the dynamic between the three of us straight off. Because those are MY kids. *shaking head* I think I have too many insecurities to handle a real threeway relationship well.
September 11th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I love literotica and I totally agree, it can be too much or too gross. I don’t like incest stories at all but I do love threesome stories. They’re my fav. A really good one is titled “friends” by Many Feathers. idn’t know that about the word menage a trois either, that it means to live together. I always thought it meant sex with three. Interesting blog. Good points!
I’m curious to read your Ellora story! I also have a threesome story I am waiting to hear bacl on, it is possibly a menage a trois because they deciode to continue they’re threesome in the end. Have a great day!
-Tara
September 11th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Dayna: LOL. No, I didn’t take it that way.
I think I’m the only person in the Novelty group who’s in that lifestyle and has been in several poly relationships.
I was secondary in the relationship I mentioned. When you’re with a couple who’s been together for a very long time, that’s to be expected. It would’ve ended better had we communicated more in the beginning and it been established that it would be the dynamic. Also would’ve been better if I had my own primary relationship then, too, because… well, I’m a fairly emotionally needy person, believe it or not.
I don’t think I read Crystal’s “In Smoke” (yes, I know, bad Novelty Girl), but I read the short piece she had with Forbidden for awhile, “Twice in a Blue Moon.” If “In Smoke” is written like that… it’s full of win.
September 11th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Awww. Y’all are too good to me. And Twice in a Blue Moon was one I had Nonny read over for accuracy. I’ve never been in a poly relationship, nor have I had a threesome, so…I needed some help there. There are times when you need to call in an expert. *ooooh, Nonnnny*
I have to admit I also have a problem with people describing the walking penis/vagina stories as committed poly relationships. My thought with threesome romance (where all partners are sexually/romantically involved with all the other partners) is that each character should fulfill some need in the other two characters. A puzzle that fits together.
Maybe I’m crazy, but that’s how I approach it because that’s what I like to read. Personal preference, I s’pose.